I was thinking lately about Google products and consumers and I thought maybe Google is getting ahead of consumers too quickly. If you think about it, Apple is very forward-thinking in design, but with interfaces, they believe that simplicity is key and with consumers it is. Apple pushes the consumer to accept new technology by simplifying it. I am a pretty firm believer in that, if you are going to produce something it has to be simple and easy to use. That’s not so much the case with some of Google’s latest technologies.

Google Wave and Google Voice seem like they are getting ahead of the average consumer. They are both very innovative, but they are not simple enough for the average consumer. The average consumer wants to simplify their life, which is what Wave and Voice set out to do, but they also add another layer of unwanted complexity. For Google Wave, you have to check yet another website and learn how to use another service to communicate people when you already use email, facebook, im etc. Google wave adds another level of complexity in that you have to save a second set of numbers to your phone and there is still not MMS functionality so you have to give out your cell number in addition to your Google Voice number if you want to use the service. Both are forward thinking services but they are significantly ahead of consumers and thats why Google is probably having a tough time getting the average consumer to continue using these products. To me they seem like they might be better suited for the forward thinking technologists and maybe one day either they will be simplified or consumers will catch up to speed.

Way back in September, I wrote about some thoughts of mine on Google Voice.  Since then, there have been a few announcements to the Google Voice service including the whole Apple App Store controversy.  While Google is doing their magic and making the existing service more robust, I thought some more about the potential of Google Voice:

Google could partner with an existing wireless service provider, such as AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc. and they can connect the Google Voice service on top of the existing service provider’s back end systems.  It would allow the user to use their regular phone number with all of the Google Voice services: texting from a computer, forwarding to multiple phone numbers, transcribed and downloadable voice mail etc.  The best part about this, is end users would not have to store additional “406 area code” phone numbers in their phone book, it would work natively with existing phones.  This lifts an entire veil of complexity and opens up Google Voice to the world of simple users.

Users would be able to start a conversation on their computer(much easier to type on then a tiny keypad or touch screen on a phone) and then continue on their phone on the go without any interruption (It’s very feasible, I do it all the time).  Privacy issues aside, users would be able to access past conversations and search for important information.  It would be very similar to Microsoft’s Kin online management system, except it would be focused on your text message and eventually can and should be rolled out to manage your media as well.

Integration of Google Voice natively with a wireless phone provider (or at least a similar service) is most certainly the future, I wonder what the time table is; I want to be the first beta tester.  I guess its just a matter of until the service providers pull their heads out of their asses.

*In addition to allowing users to text from a browser, service providers, can and should provide an app that would allow users to text right from their desktop.  In fact my friend, Dave Amenta has already developed an awesome desktop app for Google Voice, I use it all the time!

Busy with school work and other stuff but here’s a quickie:

I am not one to watch much television or even streaming television online, but I noticed that there are rumors going around that Hulu is going to start charging for content.  This is a stupid idea because there are other options that exist for Hulu.

They have the technical capability to make it so that you have to sit through videos and can’t fast forward through it, but they only show a few short commercials or one semi-long one.

Why don’t they actually just show more commercials and make consumers sit through them?  The primary reason why consumers go online to watch television shows is time-shifting, not saving time/avoiding commercials.  Its a convenience!  Hulu should take advantage of this and tax consumers with more commercials.  ”If you want to watch our shows at your convenience then you can get slammed with a tax.”

Obviously, don’t add more commercials to exceed the length of the show as if it was watched on-air.  If it is a 30 minute show on-air, make it a 30 minute show online.

There is always the economics argument against this that if the supply of ads increases, then prices will drop.   If Hulu used targeted advertising, as I suggested the newspaper industry do in this post, they will be able to charge a premium for advertising.

Obviously, Hulu can also create a premium account with no advertising, but not having a free model is like a death sentence; illegal video websites will win out over a pay only model.

I was thinking the other day about Google Voice and the possible implementations of Google, the leader of search, running and owning Google voice. I then got into thinking about the future that is real time search and realized, “why doesn’t Google use all of the data from Voice and Gmail and use it as a real time search engine.”

Google has all of this data from their users that goes untapped. Google could potentially use all the data from Voice and Gmail created in real time, to create something like Twitter’s trending topics. Google doesn’t have to buy Twitter for a real time search engine; they have all the data they need already flowing through their servers. Millions of emails and texts are sent through Google; they could easily search these emails and texts to determine what people are talking about and what links they are sharing in real time. They could use the data in their search engine algorithms, to create a search engine, that is longer “playable” by people that sell search engine optimization (SEO). They can create a search engine that is based on word of mouth, as well as algorithms. This will increase people’s perception of the reliability of the engine. Word of mouth is the most powerful form of marketing, why is this not tapped in combination with real time search.

Ok, someone is bound to complain that it is not Google’s data to scan. Keep in mind, that my vision of Google’s real time search, does not actually display people’s texts and emails, or even their names, just the links that they send. I suppose some people will not want their data searchable, so Google can have an opt out option. Google would not be able to get rid of their regular search engine because videos and links go viral and they are sent around the world at rapid paces. The real time engine would just be in addition to Google’s regular search. I am most certainly interested to see what Google does in regards to real time. They recently added Twitter search, but that is not going to cut it; Twitter does not cover everything!